Conversation
Analysis
OGHENETEGA SYLVIA IDOGHO
UP686679
UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH
22/04/2013
Content
Intro to ease you in
What was done
Interpretation of findings
What we have learnt
References
Introduction/Background
Conversation analysis has been increasing used in associated
subjects such as sociology, anthropology, psychology etc.
(Smith, 2008) due to its ability to examine social interactions.
According to Seedhouse (2004), conversation analysis is the
investigation of “how participants analyse and interpret each
others actions and develop a shared understanding”
Conversation analyst observes conversation as an action, not
just a communication. (Smith, 2008 cites Edwards, 1995).
Therefore, the analysis focuses on how people understand
and respond to one another.
Varied actions occur which enables a smooth conversation
such as…
OVERLAPS and GAPS.
Introduction/Background
Overlaps are aspects of conversation when more than one
speaker talks.
Gaps are silences that occur at Transition Relevant Places
(TRP).
Overlaps and Gaps occur in conversation to indicate turn
taking. However, founders of CA were confused at how little
these factors occur in conversations.
Research indicates that turn taking is NOT as precise as it is
assumed, and in a free flowing conversation, overlaps occur
(Heldner & Edlund, 2012). Therefore, I decided to investigate
gaps and overlaps which occur during social interaction.
This aspects of conversation will be explored by studying
naturally occurring data; focus and examine how interaction
is organised i.e. turn taking.
Method
Sources of data
Transcription of data
Procedures for analysis and interpretation
Method: Source of data
The extracts used in this analysis derived from a selection
of recordings of naturally occurring communications.
The participants involved in the conversation:
A husband and his wife discussing about wrapping garden
plants.
A man and woman eating while talking about a shed.
The aspects of conversation I focused on were Gaps and
Overlaps due to its significant value in conversations.
I decided on elaborate on fragments and turns that might
mean more than they seem.
Method: Transcription of data
The data collected was transcribed using a
repeated playback method and the standard CA
conventions.
The transcript also followed the Jefferson
transcription conventions.
Extracts were repeatedly played and listen to
correct any errors and ensure the transcript was
reliable.
Pauses and gaps were timed using a stopwatch.
Method: Procedures for Analysis and
Interpretation
After selecting the fragments, and transcribing, each
TCU was identified by a gap or an overlap.
Data was analysed turn by turn basis after
transcription.
To ensure validity of analysis, the next turn was
assessed to see how the turn taker responded to what
had been said.
Results and Discussion
(4.5)
W: <can you get across> to OWEN and ask for (my money)= ((SPP
question))
M: (.8)(coughs) ((No immediate response))
F: I’ll ring up the:(.)man about the shed? ((FPP Question
elaborated))
(1.2) ((Dispreferred))
M: Yes (.8) I shall: ((SPP Answer))
• Woman uses an instructive style to converse with the man-Adjacency pair.
• Short gap before FPP show how to ask the question.
• Gap before SPP indicate trouble in knowing what answer to provide to
prevent a disagreement.
• Long Pause after SPP answer show uncertainty of acceptance
Results/Discussion
M: [flask’n anyway (.5) its (coughs) its in=a box in t’car at
the moment and:
F: • Man requests
[is it in foraadvice
pot?as((FPP
they converse-Adjacency
question))
M: pairs.
[it’s no ((SPP answer))
F: • Overlaps
[no? are occurring without any –ve offset however,
M: it shows that there
[no=which isis why
indecision
I if transition should
take that
got’t(close) those ones place. were on offer (.9)
• Overlap
errmm: it’s right here after FPP indicates
(coughs)they answer is being
were already sought
in a=a out
nice
quickly
pot but there (things weretoclose)
enable quick solution to question
[collection
F: • Response to FPP is [ a Dispreferred
well=ah don’t response.
think it
matters th (.) I think its probably as well=its not in a pot
cos I think that plant in the garden they
weren’t=couldn’t=won’t have it in’a pot
Dispreferred
SPP rejection and suggestion
Results/Discussion
It doesn’t provide empirical evidence to suggest that
overlapping in a conversation would have a negative
effect. Disagrees with Strivers (2009).
Supports Heldner et al (2010) who discovered that
overlaps occur in a free-flow conversation.
Are there cultural differences?
Strivers (2009) found that there was no cultural
variation in Language actions.
Further research should explore further if there are
gender differences in the way actions performed
during conversations are interpreted.
Summary
CA is the study of transcriptions of recordings from
everyday life occurrences.
People listen with the intent to reply to show
interest.
Overlaps and Gaps occur naturally in conversations
to indicate turn taking
Gaps might occur less to prevent awkwardness.
Overlaps are seen as annoying but it stimulates
conversation.
The actions portrayed by language are universal.
References
Edwards, D. (1995). ‘Sacks and Psychology’. Theory and
Psychology, Vol 15 (3) pp 579-597
Heldner, M. & Edlund, J. (2010). Pauses, Gaps and Overlaps
in conversations. Journal of Phonetics, Vol 38 (4) pp 555-
568
Ping, Z. (2007). On Preferred and Dispreferred second turns
in Interaction. Sino-Us English Teaching, Vol 4 pp 38-41
Seedhouse, P. (2004). Conversation Analysis Methodology.
Language Learning, Vol 54 (1) pp 1-54
Smith, J.A. (2008). Qualitative psychology: A practical
guide to research methods. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Strivers, T. (2009). Universal and Cultural Variation in Turn
taking. PNAS, Vol 106 pp 10587-10592
